tongyun

Piggie

It's a personal choice, though you can dig out statistics like I am sure Bicker will do when he sees this question.

To me, absolutely. This fall there is only one, repeat, one show new to cable I am going to watch, Stargate Universe. The rest of the new shows I want are all on the big 5 I now call them. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and FOX. FOX and PBS have as many transmitters as the big three. CW if it continues to try new shows over the years may be the Big 6. ION and MyNet in my opinion while having shows I watch are not trying to venture into the new show category.

I didn't even bother with cable until about 1995, as it had little to offer where I lived (back woods cable system) and several places I lived in the 1980's, there wasn't any cable. I just put up a huge antenna and watched TV.

By the 1990's though several new networks came along with good stuff. But in the last 2 years to me, I have seen a waning of new good stuff on cable. Netflix has replaced the movie channels at a lower cost and watch what you want, so that to me is out. Now this TV season (and some from last) broadcast TV in my opinion totally out did cable.

Simple answer, yes. I think they are.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

bicker

Yes, I did the math, actually, a week ago, to help me decide to downgrade my cable subscription. I determined that we were going to record about 300 hours of programming this fall over the antenna, and about 75 hours of programming this fall via the cable. I couldn't imagine us actually watching even 300 hours of programming much less 375 hours, so essentially we were paying $60 a month for cable just to record things? That's silly.

We're actually just downgrading to Digital Economy. That'll save us $30 a month. We'll still get most of the 75 hours of cable; we'll just be losing Stargate Universe and Sanctuary (maybe 18 hours total). We'll still get White Collar, Mythbusters, Mad Men and The Prisoner mini-series.

So 300 hours for the broadcast networks, versus only 75 hours (at most) for the cable networks? I'd say that broadcast is still not only relevant, but still dominant.

Eureka

Funny how some people think that because they have fast internet, that everyone has access to internet fast enough to watch television shows on their computers. For millions in the US, it just isn't reality, yet.

JakesDTVBlog

Oh, how right you are, Eureka! I don't know what the broadband situation is outside of Eureka Springs -- I know it's available at Holiday Island, because we used to vacation there every year -- but I know it's pretty much nonexistent in many areas not far from you. My wife's aunt lives "out in the sticks" about 25 miles south of ES and considers herself blessed to get dial-up internet.

Even in Indiana, it's only been within the last 2 or 3 years that it's become available for less than a king's ransom in the small community where my parents live. In fact, it's only been within the last two months that Mom finally sprung for it, and that was only because I could prove that it was actually cheaper than her dial-up! (About $8/month cheaper. )

I think we're probably looking at another 10-20 years before broadband that isn't ungodly expensive reaches everyone who wants it. And yes, I'd LOVE to be wrong about that.

__________________
Visit Jake's DTV Blog!

bicker

There are discussions about adding taxes, in the form of additional contributions to the USF, to support broadband deployment in rural areas. While most people don't like the idea of higher/new taxes to help pay for things for other people, that they themselves have to pay for by themselves, it may be that enough people will acknowledge that broadband is becoming as necessary as POTS is.

Orrymain

Network TV has some improving to do, but right now, I think it's even. Cable TV doesn't offer anything special. They have just as many commercials as network, and there are a lot of people who still want that line drawn in the sand about profanity.